this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2025
325 points (97.1% liked)
Map Enthusiasts
4970 readers
31 users here now
For the map enthused!
Rules:
-
post relevant content: interesting, informative, and/or pretty maps
-
be nice
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As much As I agree that pto needs to be required, it's simply pure white collar thinking to think that more people don't need to be hired to cover for vacations. In blue collar, labor jobs, the employer needs to hire temp workers (as my area does) or give other employees considerably more hours(some locals have flex employees that do pt most of the year and ft during vacation periods). The employer is out the wages it costs to pay the cover, it is not free. And the employer should be paying that.
New employees cost real money. Posted this yesterday:
People are a pain in the ass, I'm sure we'll agree. :) More people, more pain in the ass. The woman who handled scheduling at Lowe's caught grief every day. Well fuck me, she's not trained in HR and has to deal with 200 people's wants and needs. I felt sorry for her.
But back on topic,
That's the point I can't get my head around. The employer is already paying X people for Y job. Someone getting PTO costs them nothing as the remaining people work harder to cover. Does that make sense? I feel my argument is lacking common sense I'm not seeing.
There's a couple issues with it. For specialized trainings, you'll only have a few people with them, and with vacations you'll need more. Training costs money.
People will not work harder to cover. Longer, sometimes. Harder, rarely. The company still needs to make certain timelines. There's an extent to witch employees can work "harder". The more people off, the less you can just cover it with working harder.
If you're not going to hire people, the longer hours the employees work to do the work will be paid at over time rates. Those are not cheap